Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kateshortforbob

Kateshortforbob

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (25/3/2); Scheduled to end 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Kateshortforbob (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure today to nominate Kateshortforbob for adminship. Kateshortforbob, who for the sake of my keyboard will be referred to as Kate, is another one of those vital editors without whom the project would not function. Kate first joined Wikipedia in 2006, but started editing in July of 2007, before taking a break until March of this year.

An editor who works quietly and efficiently without seeking recognition, Kate has and continues to provide invaluable assistance to users at the help and reference desks. She works tirelessly in categorising articles, another one of Wikipedia's lesser known backlogs, and regularly participates at AfD. Kate is an active helper at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, and is familiar with fighting vandalism and generally keeping the encyclopaedia tidy. Kate amassed an impressive 8000 edits without excessive use of automated tools, showing she is not a Huggle warrior - her edits are an example of her dedication to the project. She has experience in deletion areas, with all her nominations at AfD being closed as delete, and with CSD nominations being highly accurate. She has been trusted with rollback for well over a year. That's not all; Kate regularly gets stuck into articles and fulfills her editorial duties. A list of her article contributions is located here, and she has also uploaded a few of her pictures on Commons.

In short, everything I see in this user is exactly what we are looking for in our admins, and I have full confidence that Kate will handle the extra buttons exceptionally well. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Backslash Forwardslash, for your nomination and kind words: I accept. I'd also like to thank, in advance, any editors who provide a question or comment here, --Kateshortforbob 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As my nominator has noted, I have worked in a number of backlog areas such as Uncategorised Articles, and I would expect to continue this theme if promoted. Before committing any administrative action, I would 'enrol' myself in the new admin school which looks to be a very useful tool, as does the how-to guide. Having familiarised myself with those, I believe I would begin by taking on uncontroversial speedy deletions, such as those under criteria G1 (patent nonsense), G3 (vandalism) and G6 (technical deletions). I not infrequently come across pages which fall under other CSD criteria, and it would be useful to be able to remove them myself, instead of adding to the backlog. At the Help Desk, which I try to visit regularly, we often see editors asking why their page was deleted, and it would be good to have the ability to give them a more detailed answer (although there are a number of dedicated Help Desk administrators, I always find a few spares of anything handy!) I don't imagine I would be blocking anyone until I have a firm grip on the tools; I always try to start by giving the benefit of the doubt, but there are some cases where an editor must be blocked. Other areas where I think I could be useful include requests at WP:RFPP and WP:PERM.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm aware that featured articles and good articles add lustre to an RFA; unfortunately, that's not an area I have contributed in. I have one Did you know? credit, for Yilishen Tianxi Group. Other articles created from scratch are Noel Carroll (runner) and Downhill House. I tend to work on articles I come across at random through Recent Changes or WP:AFD, performing gnome-style edits and (hopefully) giving them a bit of a polish. I saw Aidan McAnespie at it's AFD and realised I had a reference text for it; several editors improved it enough that it was not deleted. I enjoyed seeing another aspect of AFD in that case. I also enjoy helping other editors where I can, particularly editors new to Wikipedia, and I hope that some of my contributions at the Help Desk, Reference Desks and in response to queries on talk pages have been useful to newcomers. I also enjoy taking photos, although I'm by no means skilled, and try to fill in gaps in Wikipedia where possible.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Although I generally keep my head down, I suspect that it's difficult to avoid all conflict in a place where so many people with so many different views come together. Two incidents stick out in my mind: an editor adding a large amount of what I believed was inappropriate text to an article followed up my removal by disputing the removal and suggesting that I was part of some kind of cover-up. In this case, I initiated a request for comment to get some additional views on the correct course of action. The second originated at the reference desk, where several editors, including myself, had a rather "difficult" discussion with a querant. To be honest, I'm still not sure whether this user had a genuine problem or not; several of his other questions were rather dubious. The user also appeared to be editing from one account while signing a different user's name. When I mentioned this, I didn't really get a positive response. The user was later blocked as a sockpuppet. I generally try to work from the assumption that new users are here with good intentions until they prove otherwise. In both cases, I did try to communicate the editors concerned and point them in the right direction: when I get too involved, I always remember that there are lots of other people who will be able to look at the situation with fresh eyes.

Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter

4a. What is your understanding of WP:IAR?

A: That it's not necessary to know and understand all of the rules at Wikipedia before you are able to edit. If that were the case, we might have a lot less problems, but also a lot less articles and contributors. In that sense, IAR is a direction to editors similar to our strapline, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Ignore all rules means: "Don't worry about learning all the policies straight off; jump in and edit something!"

Ignore All Rules isn't a free pass; it's a clause which allows us to work to create the best user-editable online encyclopedia we can. The "rules" (policies, guidelines etc.) which we have developed as a community should generally be followed. However, our policies and other documents are mostly descriptions of how things have been done in the past, and how they are being done in the present. It's possible that, in the future, we may need to do things differently. Ignore all rules gives us that flexibility.

4b. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: In the simplest sense, a block is a technical measure, while a ban is a social measure. A block prevents an editor from editing under a specific username or IP address (or range of addresses) and is initiated by an administrator. A ban is a statement that proscribes an editor from editing under any username or IP address and is put in place by the community or by the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may be used to enforce bans. Neither a block nor a ban is inherently permanent, although both have the potential to be indefinite, if the community so chooses. Both blocks and bans are intended to prevent damage and disruption to Wikipedia.

4c. What will you do if an indef-blocked user requests to be unblocked after 4 months promising that he will not make a mistake again?

A: If another administrator blocked the user, I would ask for their view. If I blocked the user, I would re-examine the edits that had got the user blocked. For example, if the user had been blocked per WP:LEGAL and their threat was still outstanding, they would have to retract it before being unblocked. If the case is one of simple vandalism, I might be inclined to give the user a second chance (depending on the severity and nature of the problem). I would, however, make it clear to them that they were on a short leash, so to speak, and would take a particular interest in their future editing. Mentoring or adoption may be beneficial for some editors in this case. If the block had been discussed/decided by the community, for example on the administrator's noticeboard, I would begin a discussion there to gather consensus on whether the block should be lifted.

4d. Checking your contribs, you've been inactive for large periods. Any specific reason for that? Will you take such wikibreaks in the future again?

A: I was inactive for a significant amount of last year for a number of reasons; the most significant being job-related. As you can see from this tool, a large number of my edits in 2007 were made between 9am and 5pm, as my job had long periods of downtime. At the end of 2007, I moved to a different job where I had no free time and no Internet access at work, so my editing dropped rather alarmingly. This spring, I changed jobs once again, and am in a similar situation to 2007: Internet access and quite a lot of time 'on duty', but with nothing to do, which is why my editing picked up. I can't promise that I will never leave Wikipedia again, but the nature of my employment has changed, and I don't expect a significant increase in hours or alteration in circumstances anytime in the near future.

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

5. Looking at Yannick Bressan, for which I see you're claiming credit as one of your contributions, what important piece of GFDL-related text has never appeared on the talk page of the article? Why does it matter, and how has Wikipedia's attitude to the GFDL changed since?

A: I think you are referring to the {{Translated page}} template, which is recommended to fulfil the attribution clause of the GFDL? I'm not sure how I missed that at the time; I'll fix my oversight now. It matters because, at the time, the original article was licensed under GFDL terms, one of the conditions of which require that the previous authors should be credited. The template supplies a link to the history of the original article. Last month, Wikipedia moved to a Creative Commons cc-by-sa license, with special exemptions to allow contributions licensed under GFDL to be ported to the cc-by-sa license (as the two licenses are incompatible). As I understand it, the change was made because Creative Commons licensing is felt to be a better 'fit' for Wikipedia than GFDL.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I believe that this a difficult question to answer. Wikipedians are people, and people generally have some rights, although not all people have the rights that I would like them to have (rights under the Geneva Conventions, for example). As Wikipedians, participating on Wikipedia, I believe that editors have certain abilities which might be termed 'rights', for example, the 'right' to edit the encyclopedia. However, these rights may be withdrawn, through blocking or banning the editor or protecting a page; as in real life, where rights which we may feel are fundamental are sometimes withdrawn. Whether we as individuals believe this is correct or not is another matter. Wikipedia has avenues through which users can exercise their natural and legal rights, which I don't believe are necessarily curtailed by Wikipedia participation. As regards upholding the rights of Wikipedians on Wikipedia, I would work to ensure that editors would have the ability to edit in a beneficial working environment, free (or as free as possible) from, for example, personal attacks or vandalism. However, I am not an expert, either in human rights or legal ones, and would encourage any editor who wishes to pursue these in relation to Wikipedia to consult an expert in the 'real world'.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I would consider myself neither an inclusionist or a deletionist, and try to judge articles on their individual merits. I don't believe there are many areas where I could make a sweeping judgement: "All articles on certainTopic are notable" or "All articles on otherTopic are not notable". I would say that there are certain things which, while technically meeting the GNG, are not useful article topics. For example, a speech made by a politician quite often is referenced in multiple, reliable, independent sources; at least where I live, every time a politician opens his/her mouth, there are articles in several newspapers about whatever they said. But are these enough to create a viable article? Would the article be useful, and will anyone be interested in what the Agriculture minister said about the price of cattle in six months? Often, the answer is no. An option in this case is to add the information to an existing article, but even then, Wikipedia isn't a place to indiscriminately put every scrap of information about everything that has ever happened. To a certain extent, the GNG does take this into account by adding the qualifier "it is presumed to satisfy...", but no, while I generally believe that the GNG is a useful guide for assessing the notability of a subject, I don't believe that every subject which technically follows the guideline is suitable for a standalone article.

As to the reverse situation, there are certainly articles on Wikipedia which do not show proof of in depth coverage in multiple, reliable sources (lots and lots, I expect). Our barrier for entry with regards notability is initially very low: an article must only say why it is notable to avoid deletion under speedy deletion criteria (although of course this only applies to certain types of articles). Ideally, over time, articles without verifiable proof of notability are identified, and either improved or removed. In reality, there are occasions when this doesn't happen, due to the sheer volume of content being created, sometimes by enthusiastic but inexperienced editors. There are subjects which, if I came across articles about them, I personally might consider notable, even if there is no proof of notability in the article. In those cases, the thing to do would be to attempt to find some proof. If I still can't find anything to satisfy GNG, at that point it becomes a matter for the community to judge., regardless of my personal opinion.

8. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.

A: I hope you don't mind, but I have chosen one of the SNGs not specifically mentioned in your question: Books. I think this is a reasonably useful notability guideline, but the issue of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" is complicated. Many books receive significant coverage when they are published, in the form of reviews, but this does not necessarily guarantee that they are appropriate subjects for a Wikipedia article, and the guideline not not appear to explicitly address this issue at the moment, aside from the generic instruction to treat it "with common sense and the occasional exception".

Additional optional questions from Kingpin

9a. You do some work in CSD (most of it seems very good, from what I've looked at). I'd like to ask you some questions about CSD. I accept that most of your taggings seem to be CSD G12, with some A7 and G3 taggings. Firstly; A page is created with the content "haha i rck. i beat chuck norris in a armrestel! alos i savd the earth form alien 10 time!" Does this page meet (A) CSD A7 (B) CSD G1 or (C) CSD G2? What would you personally tag it as (this doesn't have to be a,b or c)?

A: a) A7 (Assertion of notability) Well, it does assert notability, but that notability is not credible (Beat Chuck Norris? Never happen). Seriously, in this case, I think it's fairly clear that the claims of notability made are highly unlikely, and would feel that it meets criterion A7.

b)G1 (Patent nonsense) It's not patent nonsense. While poorly written and non-factual, it is legible.

c) G2 (Test pages) I think it depends in this case. I wouldn't tag it for deletion as a test page, as there are other criteria it meets more definitively. I would, however, take a look at the editors other contributions to try to work out if their intention was to test Wikipedia, or just to make a mess. If I believed they were just testing (and I generally try to take this view with new editors, except in the case of egregious and obvious vandalism), my communication with them would be somewhat different that it would with an editor who has a history of this kind of thing.

I would tag it A7 no credible assertion of notability. It may also be eligible under the misinformation clause of G3 vandalism.

9b. You tagged PICARD (spacecraft) as a copyvio. Although the site claims that "You may reproduce any content on this site for non-commercial purposes, provided you cite the source of the information" (note: I personally don't do massive copyvio work, although I've tagged a few G12s). Why did you tag this? Did you look around the site for copyright notices first?

A: I have to be honest: I can't remember my thoughts when I tagged this particular page. However, the Rights section you quote specifies that the work may be reproduced for non-commmercial purposes. Documents licensed for non-commercial use only are not considered to be "free" on Wikipedia. The Rights section goes on to say that "All text and images for which the provider has not been mentionned [sic] is assumed to be in the public domain" and asks that anyone who thinks they have rights to anything on the website to contact them. Reading it now, I take this to mean that they have obtained information under assumed public domain, but cannot guarantee that it is licensed in that form, and I would be inclined to give preference to the least "free" licensing on the safe side - the non-commercial license. I am guessing that my thoughts were similar at the time.

9c. What's your views on notifying users if they have miss-tagged a page? Do you think they should be contacted that their CSD tag was declined/modified?

A: I think users should be notified; although sometimes it's not fun to be told you're wrong, it is a useful learning experience. Wikipedia, more than most places, illustrates the breadth of knowledge that individuals have access to, not just in terms of the articles we write, but knowledge of Wikipedia itself. It's difficult (impossible?) to learn every aspect of Wikipedia, and sometimes we do make mistakes which need to be pointed out. Having said that, I think notification should usually take the form of a gentle nudge in the right direction, rather than a telling off.

Additional optional questions from SarekOfVulcan

10. While scanning the CSD queue, you come across the following article tagged as CSD-G1:

Navah Perlman was in my music theory class and she plays piano really great and I wish I had gotten to know her better but it's too late because she's married with four kids...

What do you do?

A: Well, first of all, in my opinion that doesn't qualify under CSD G1 (Patent nonsense). I would check the page history to see if the article existed with different content previously that it could be reverted to. If the article was newly created, check whether Navah Perlman is a notable pianist, or a notable anything else... and she is: Navah Perlman. However, if there was not currently an article on the subject but I found sources to suggest that the subject is notable, I would try to replace the content with at least a stub, based on the references I had found. I don't know a lot about concert pianists, so I would categorise the article appropriately so that more knowledgeable editors could find it. Then I would have a quiet word with the lovelorn article creator, and let the CSD tagger that the template had been removed and why.

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs).

11. Your answer to the previous IAR question was incorrect, and left me a bit uncomfortable. Could you please review that policy and take another shot at explaining it? Cheers.

General comments

• Links for Kateshortforbob: Kateshortforbob (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kateshortforbob can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kateshortforbob before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on talk page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please tell me support number 8 is a joke. I think we need a crat to state they will clearly disregard the support of someone who has backed it up by linking to our FAQ page - and indeed the section about why an organisation does not have a Wikipedia entry..... Dear me, it's no wonder I'm utterly sick of this place when we get stuff like that. Is it beyond us to read the work before linking? Clearly not. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Pedro. To be fair, until 6 days ago, WP:WHYNOT was a redirect to Wikipedia:WhyNot? Doctrine. It might be a little unfair to expect them to check a link that's been used countless times at RFA for the last 8 months to make sure it still redirects to the same place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a sense I'd expect people to be aware of what they link to - but yes I agree that the recent change means ImperatorExercitus is not at all at fault. Sorry. Maybe s/he would like to tighten that link. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise for not having answered all of the questions yet, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to sleep for a few hours. I should be available again tomorrow from 1000 GMT, when I will attempt to answer all outstanding questions/queries. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. A glowing nomination statement from someone I trust; good question answers, and nothing dodgy from a review of recent contribs. Looks like a great candidate. ~ mazca ^talk 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Seems to have clue. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Normally this is one I'd oppose for lack of work on large-scale articles, but I've seen enough of KS4B about to agree that this is someone who understands how things ought to work around here. – iridescent 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Appears to be a trustworthy editor and a net positive.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support I don't see any problems. LittleMountain5 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
7. "Kate, short for Bob"? That wouldn't be a reference to The Black Adder, would it? Anyway, I'm ready to trust you even though you only have about 1k edits after April last year. You're by no means inexperienced, and I can find no problems looking at your contribs. Also, what Mazca said. Jafeluv (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Can't find anything wrong, oppose isn't nearly enough, great project work...WP:WHYNOT? Cheers, I'^mperator 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   Umm, I'm pretty sure you mean "why not" instead of WP:WHYNOT... :) Jafeluv (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   ...or maybe WP:WTHN. :) LittleMountain5 23:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Support For strong work in copyright. Lack of audited contributions really is not and should not be a problem. Will make a good sysop. Good Luck. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support as I see nothing which indicates the tools would be abused, and quite a lot which shows they would be put to good use. Net positive by a wide margin, I believe. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. I was going to go neutral over lack of, well, stuff, but then realised that 8000 is actually more than enough to judge whether this person is a good admin candidate (and I realised I was being hypocritical). All my interactions with the user have been positive (although not particularly numerous), so I've no doubt the the nominee will be a respectful admin. A bit liberal on the "minor edit" button, though. Should this pass, the canidate should also tread a bit more carefully than most because of lack of recent "janitorial" contributions (deletions, par exemple). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - Will make good use of the tools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. Good editor. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support seems to be a good editor who could make good use of the tools. Article work presented shows an understanding of core policies of original research and verifiability. Guest9999 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support -- the IAR answer worried me, but its heart was definitely in the right place. Definitely appears to have a good handle on how things are done. Hmm, I think it's time for my first optional question. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support; yeah, article work would be good, but the school needs janitors just as much as it does teachers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    However, and I mean no offense by this, but the answer to the IAR question was simply incorrect. I'd advise you to review WP:ARL should this pass. Good luck regardless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

17. Support, after a fair bit of thought.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I thought about this hard. I was concerned about the lack of article work on the merit that you shouldnt delete something if you havent developed an article on your own (but whats the basis?). But The previous csd work counteracts this. A helpful tone on the help desk and a dedication to the project are all reasons to support. I have no doubt Kate will be a fine admin. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support.Hmm, tough this one with the lack of article experience (I cant talk lol!), but I think there is no specific reason not to support. Andy (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I don't see a problem in supporting Kate. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Where are people getting the idea that Kate hasn't created any articles? The RfA toolbox shows 5 articles created by Kate, most of them more or less singlehandedly, and they all look pretty good to me (no stubs or OR or "needs improvement" tags). Feel free to show me if I've made a mistake. (Note: to prevent others from running the (apparently rather resource-intensive) script again, here is the list of five: ASIL Lysi, SCIF Kyiv, Yilishen Tianxi Group, Downhill House, Noel Carroll (runner).) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

    Absolutely. --Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC) User:Jauarbeck blocked as an impersonation account. Wknight94 ^talk 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

    Support. Great editor. TNXMan 02:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnxmen307 (talk • contribs) User:Tnxmen307 blocked as an impersonation account. Wknight94 ^talk 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

22. Support. Solid, helpful editors generally make solid, helpful adminstrators. No logical reason to believe otherwise, IMO. Keeper | 76 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
23. AGF in spite of incorrect answer to question as JC pointed out. Pmlineditor 08:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support, no reason not to. I quite like the Blackadder reference as well :P Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support please follow the suggestion to re-read WP:IAR, because your understanding their is incomplete. But this should not affect your efficianr handling of the tools. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Lack of article creation and content contribution experience. I also don't see much evidence of conflict resolution experience. The other work is greatly appreciated, but doesn't (in my opinion) establish a good foundation for getting and appropriately using the admin tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually looked at the candidates work yet (I will before !voting), but from reading the nom statement, Kate/Bob seems to take part in AfD (admin area), copyright clearing up (nice to have the tools there I imagine), vandalism clear up (again, nice to have to tools), CSD tagging (we need more admins deleting these, it can take up to hours for blatant vandalism/attacks to be removed at times). On top of this, s/he works (with newbs(?)) at help desk. And you think that because they don't take part in two more areas (one of which isn't even related to adminship) they aren't going to use the tools correctly/in the right place? I get the feeling that were this to pass, Kate would work at exactly the right areas (CSD, AfD, AIV, RCP, NPP, SCV, HD), in exactly the right way. No admin works in every single area, don't except them to. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't support giving tools to people that may not use them properly. I am all for making a category of admin that has a tool set that doesn't include dealing with content disputes and blocking (except in cases of vandalism) but allows them to use the other tools. It's very difficult to rein in abusive admins, and when we give out tools to those who have quitely gnomed away, we really don't know what we'll get when it comes to dispute resolution do we? I don't want any more drama mongering admins who abuse their privledges. I don't have the desire to spend my time in endless arbcom hearings trying to get their actions corrected. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. So I can only support candidates that I am confident have good judgment in sorting out disputes and who have demonstrated a likelihood that they will refrain from enacting disruptive and misguided blocks against good faith content contributors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough; you're entitled to your opinion, me to mine. But I'll stress again that I don't think that just because there are some areas (or area) they haven't worked in means that they will abuse the tools, if they have worked in many, many, other areas, and have done very good in those areas that they do work in - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If Kateshortforbob can convince me that they have the judgment and integrity to deal with content disputes properly, then I stand ready to support. The problem is that editors who don't do content and article building don't have to deal with the issues involved. So unless they seek dispute resolution out at wp:30 or other areas, it's very difficult to assess how they will handle them and whether they have enough perspective on the issues that are involved. Content building is also a critical part of encyclopedia, but I recognize there is room for other tasks and I appreciate their work in those areas and am not intending to demean those contributions, which is why I support the creation of separate adminship category for thsoe who don't want to or aren't experienced enough to deal with disputes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Without passing a personal opinion on the topic or on the individuals you mentioned; I have to point out that the two admins you highlight above as abusive both had substantial content-creation and, in one case, dispute resolution experience at the time of their RfAs. While I don't deny we have some abusive and/or otherwise suboptimal admins, in almost all cases the problems that came up once they were given admin tools simply weren't evident beforehand. In many cases it's hard to identify the people who will abuse power until it is given to them; and I'm not convinced the criteria you're using here are actually any more helpful at identifying this than any other. Obviously you're welcome to disagree here and obviously do; but I'm interested in your thoughts on that. ~ mazca ^talk 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You're probably right. I will hope for the best. I'm still concerned about experience and the limited content contributions. But on the other hand KSFB has done good work (apparently) in areas such as on the help desk. I had trimmed the bit where I called out those I feel are examples of bad behavior a few minutes before you commented. It didn't seem necessary or constructive to this process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose per lack of content contributions and I didn't like the answer given on 4a, especially the first part. WP:IAR has to do with ignoring a rule if it prevents one from improving the encyclopedia. That has nothing to do with not knowing the rules in the first place. While I agree that one shouldn't have to know all the rules in the first place (I don't know if anyone knows all the rules), I don't think IAR has to do with knowledge of the rules. Sorry! Tavix |  Talk  18:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Tavix. I won't argue about content contributions; I tend to disagree in general, but that's certainly a reasonable opinion to have. But I have to ask that you reconsider the majority of your oppose; you're saying you oppose, at least in part, because of how they worded their answer to a silly essay question. There are too many different opinions about too many things out there for us to demand that a candidate agree with us exactly on all the answers to all the questions. For example, two long-established essays disagree: Wikipedia:Understanding IAR#The essence of ignorance, and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#What "Ignore all rules" means. Shall I start opposing candidates who don't think that not having to know all the rules is a valid part of IAR? Between the two of us, who knows how many qualified candidates we could scupper by insisting that the candidates mirror our own opinions on every question. Kateshortforbob's opinion on a busywork question has almost nothing to do with what kind of admin they'll be. Sorry if this is unfairly directed at you; I see it a lot, and if I thought anything useful would ever come from a thread at WT:RFA, I'd raise it there instead. But since WT:RFA is useless for practical matters, I'm settling for trying to convince one reasonable person at a time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - No more admin hopefuls with only a modicum of real article work. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm sorry. With your lack of content work I'm not prepared to support - even though I have to say I like the user name :). Wikipedia is, at a fundamental level, based on work to the mainspace. There is no question that in reality admin tools do not apply to creating content - but one would expect a reasonable level of experience before granting the ability to remove others from having the ability to add to said content - eg. through BLOCK and PROTECT. M♠ssing Ace 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral Im torn. I havent seen any huge amount of article development here. I think its important to develop an article yourself before being able to press the deletion button on an article. I may be missing something in the contribution summary. I am not steering towards oppose however. More than anything Im leaning towards support. I like the work Kate has done with the help desk in the past. And Kate has provided good judgement on CSD to my awareness. So Im torn. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I think theres no reason not to support here. I trust the tools will not be abused here. I think Kate will do a fine job. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Uncertain I'm wimping out on my oppose for now and moving to neutral pending further discussion. I have concerns about the limited experience shown in content building, dispute resolution and demonstrating you will exercise restraint and good judgment. But you seem decent and nice enough maybe to do the job. I'd hate to hold the crappy admins that have snuck through in the past against you. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Well, per your answer to Q9c consider this a "gentle nudge in the right direction". You see, you answered Q9a incorrectly; "Well, it does assert notability, but that notability is not credible", which you say means that a CSD A7 tagging would be correct. However, A7 doesn't actually require the claim to be credible, so long as it exists, which we both agree that it does in my example. Thus, an A7 delete would be incorrect, and G3 would be more appropriate (the page is obvious misinformation, as the person hasn't saved the earth from aliens 10 times). But I don't think this is sufficient to oppose on because (a) your CSD work is, in practice, very good (I checked a most of your taggings since mid-March), (b) you do do a lot of G12 noms, and we need more admins working there, and (c) you seem helpful to new editors (you seem to have interacted with some new editors who have had "their" page deleted). I'd like to see this pass, but I'm not going to push either way. And since I feel I should point out your error in your answer to my question, here I am in neutral :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)